ďA dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of menís imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.Ē J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.

This was a great article. There was another interesting read at the bottom where the question and Thorin and Orcrist is asked and answered. Take a look. The question is "if Thorin is 5 feet tall and your typical Noldorian elf was about 7 feet tall, how could Thorin wield Orcrist? Great answer at the web site.

This guy gets to the root of the challenge of making the Hobbit movie, given your the film maker that made the LOTR films, and that is the inconsistency of mode and tone between the Hobbit and LOTR.

If you are prepared to let go of your favourite childhood memory of having the Hobbit read to you age 7 or 8 it is obvious that the movie needed to be recast whilst anchored in the narrative of the book. The characters need to be fully wrought and three dimensional, the depth of the sub creation of the middle earth we know in the LOTR has to be presented (Radagast is an excellent example of adding to the legend of the Istari) and most importantly the jeopardy of this very dangerous world that the Hobbit has stumbled into needs to be properly presented rather than random elements of danger spring up in the wake of the journey. (The Trolls coming down to the Ettenmoors and Azog watching the great west road shows the true pervasiveness of the evil abroad)

There are also structural challenges for the film makers which Michael does not deal with. The book collapses after the death of the worm and the tonal change into a more geo political adult world reaches an uneasy compromise with the early fairy tale style with the BOFA told as a throw away recollection.

When all nine hours are revealed the film makers will have found answers to these issues. I feel sure that Azog will be seen as a consistent leitmotif for evil once we are done. The only matter that is unfortunate about Azog is it is clear it took a while for PJ and Co to recognise the characters true value to the story. It is public knowledge that his involvement was rushed into AUJ but that does not make his role wrong.I am sure he will sit better in the next two instalments.

When I read the wonderful unfinished tale of Tuor I was thrilled to see Tolkien had recast the tale written in his youth in the mode of the LOTR with a precise recognition of place, motive and character. As the films unfold I am feeling the same way and I am not distracted by the fact that some elements which take up very little time are pre occupied with the personal style that PJ applies to set pieces. Most films have something of the pre occupations and signature of the film maker, whether its Allen/ Scorsese/Lean/Spielberg or Huston. My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

It's hard to believe that it's been almost two years since he did his Tolkien scholar interview series, and posted links to his interviews with TORN member visualweasel (Jason Fisher) and myself, among others. I was sure that was only about a year ago. How time flies! 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

I too really like how all the random misadventures the Dwarves suffer in the book are drawn together in the movie to have meaning within the greater geopolitical events of the day. Azog, as the Necromancer's representative, is the device that does that, maybe not perfectly but well enough for me.

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you talk about letting go of our childhood memories of this fairy tale-like book in order to accept that the movie had to be completely different in tone. I suspect that AUJ is closer in feeling to the book than DoS and TaBA will be and always was intended to be. PJ has more-or-less said as much. So that tonal shift after the dragon's death should play nicely into that.

Some feel that thus far, only a few characters have been sufficiently developed but if we are talking about the Dwarves, I think that the bulk of them have been sufficiently and cleverly developed visually, with the odd line now and again.

Since I have no childhood memories of the book, I have no problem with losing the "Dear Reader" and "Tra-lally" aspects in the movie.

I too really like how all the random misadventures the Dwarves suffer in the book are drawn together in the movie to have meaning within the greater geopolitical events of the day. Azog, as the Necromancer's representative, is the device that does that, maybe not perfectly but well enough for me.

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you talk about letting go of our childhood memories of this fairy tale-like book in order to accept that the movie had to be completely different in tone...

I didn't read The Hobbit until I was 17 or 18, years after reading LOTR and Unfinisihed Tales (several times over) I actually really liked that The Hobbit had virtually nothing to do with LOTR and was a childish fairytale, it felt like starting a New Adeventure, and personally I found Tolkien's attempts to sidline Bilbo's story as merely a small part of the whole, rather than a stand alone story really depressing. I too don't have any childhood memories of the book, but personally Jackson's take on the story is stepping a little too far in my eyes to be classed as an 'adaptation' not a rewrite.

Even now When I re read The Hobbit I tend to view it soley in the light of how it was conceved, not what it became, and personally I think Its a little sad people always compare and link it to Tolkien's other work rather than appreciating it on its own merits. After the long winded epic prose of LOTR it was nice to know Tolkien was capable of writing a simple fun book that you didn't need a dictionary or a week to get through (Don't get me wrong LOTR is my Fave book, I'm just glad The Hobbit serves as a gateway to Middle Earth, not bogged down with Tolkien's pretensions).

I absolutetly detested Azog (for the usual reasons) and although I'm intruguied by the Necromancer, personally I hope Thorin and Bilbo's story is kept as seperate as possible to Gandalf's.

If the film had to be completely different why did they call it The Hobbit? Millions of people treasure the book for what it is, and comparitively few people have even bothered to read The Quest For Erebor or The Appendices (I know this from personal expereince-of the ten people I know who have read Tolkien 8 have only read and enjoyed The Hobbit-all grown adults) whatever Tolkien may have considred and partially started doing in his attempt to transform the Hobbit, it dosen't effect how the book is percieved by the majority of readers, and for me that's why I find accepting Jackson's take on the story rather harder than others.

How we approach the films is connected to a good deal of off the page drivers
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Since I have no childhood memories of the book, I have no problem with losing the "Dear Reader" and "Tra-lally" aspects in the movie.

When I came to the board i was quick to point out that I to have no child hood allegiances to the book. I have read Farm Giles of Ham and Smith of Wot ton Major and found them utterly charming better in many ways than the Hobbit because they do not stray into the legendarium and have an inner cohesion and consistency of style.

For me the Hobbit is a little like The Coming To Gondolin its part of the legendarium but it does not fulfill its full potential the former being inconsistent the latter being incomplete.

I know some people see this line of inquiry as a kind of emotional tactic for accepting PJ and Co's flawed work. Not in the slightest I have always wanted the events of the Hobbit expressed in the way PJ is doing. For me its completely instinctive just as my criticisms of the LOTR movies are. My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

For me the Hobbit is a little like The Coming To Gondolin its part of the legendarium but it does not fulfill its full potential the former being inconsistent the latter being incomplete

That's why I tend to view the hobbit as set apart-it's easier to accept the tone and style if you don't try to connect it to LOTR or The Sil too much(though I do view it as very loosely connected with BOLT and the '26 Quenta Silmarillion), and in some way's I'm glad the book feels unfiinished and incosistent-LOTR and The Sil to me sunk a little bit under the length and weight of the story and history, Tolkien spent so long trying to connect the dots he sometimes forgot to make it fun in the process.

And Of course The Hobbit features a Talking Purse so that's certainly a plus in my book.

Malick, that's a legitimate point of view though I don't agree.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

I get that you love The Hobbit for its childish charm and not as a part of Tolkienís legendarium. You wanted a straight adaptation of the book.

My POV is the opposite. I read it The Hobbit at the age of fifteen or so after having read LotR and was disappointed. I wanted more LotR, found The Hobbit too light and detested its cutesy tone. It took me a couple of later re-readings for me to be able to accept what I didn't like and enjoy The Hobbit for its real charms. But it has always been a part of the legendarium for me so I really appreciate how PJ has opened it up, adding the White Council story and is presenting it in a more mature manner, maybe only slightly more mature in the case of AUJ.

The Hobbit is still there in the movie: the Unexpected Party, the Trolls, Rivendell, the Misty Mountain, the Goblin King; the Hobbit himself and his journey from passive bumbler to courageous leader is still very present, probably more actively than in the book. PJís version is simply much expanded and embellished and includes the stories of Gandalf and Thorin. The White Council plot comes from Tolkien, though itís so sketchy in the books that it had to fleshed out in some manner. Obviously Azog is very different from that passing mention he gets in the books but he was created for specific reasons. These were PJís choices and we can agree with him or not.

I understand how disappointed you are in AUJ and probably will be in its sequels. Itís not what you wanted. It is close enough to what I wanted, though if anything I would have preferred at first for the story to be told more in the realistic, mature style of LotR. I accept PJís interpretation as walking the line between LotR and the fairy tale-like Hobbit.

There may well be another version of The Hobbit in your lifetime. For your sake, I hope so. The movies so far have been huge successes and I believe the film rights are still owned by Saul Zaentz, so it probably wonít happen in mine. Iím just fine with both the LotR and TH that I did see.

To be brutally honest I sincerely hope there are no more M.E films after The Hobbit trilogy...
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Quote

I understand how disappointed you are in AUJ and probably will be in its sequels. Itís not what you wanted. It is close enough to what I wanted, though if anything I would have preferred at first for the story to be told more in the realistic, mature style of LotR. I accept PJís interpretation as walking the line between LotR and the fairy tale-like Hobbit.

There may well be another version of The Hobbit in your lifetime. For your sake, I hope so. The movies so far have been huge successes and I believe the film rights are still owned by Saul Zaentz, so it probably wonít happen in mine. Iím just fine with both the LotR and TH that I did see.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I wouldn't have had such a problem with the films (well,possibly) if Jackson didn't insist on calling it the hobbit, more over giving the impression the 'extensive' hobbit notes in the appendices were really a blu print for the hobbit rewrote Tolkien so desperately wanted to finish (Hmm...if he was that serious about the '60 rewrite why didn't he contact his publishers, and adandon it so quickly after just passing critism from a an unamed family friend? Hardly the noraml mark of Tolkien's niggling)-If everything Tolkien rote is expanded or rewritten to bring it in line with LOTR how can new readers learn to appreciate The Hobbit on its own merits? If Jackson has more or less finished what Tolkien started with the rewrite how are readers supposed to accept The Hobbit as it is?And personally I hope there are never remakes (cinematic ones at least) not to offend any Americans on the board, personally for me The Films bend to much to Hollywood convention, a remake in 30 or 50 years time would stary even further from the material and risk damaging the way the books are percieved as literature (I'm not Christopher Tolkien in disguise don't worry)-you only have to look as the James Bond films to 90% of people they are what Bond is, even if they stray far from the source material.And I sure don't want to see any more of Tolkien's works adapted. After 3 Hobbit films rewriting the book I dread to see a Hollywood Children of Hurin, or animated retelling of Sir Gawain...But despite my gripes with them Jackson's film are by and large Great (or at the very least very enjoyable) Films (though infuriating adapations) that I don't think would be topped, or share the same care on both techincal levels and in relation to the fanbase. Best Leave the books alone IMO.I don't have much to say.

However, after reading the Lord of the Rings and other Middle-Earth works by Tolkien, I saw the events of that 'children's book' as being part of greater events in Middle-Earth, which I've wanted to find out more about.

Even as a child, the mysterious Necromancer that worried Gandalf intrigued me, so I'm quite happy they took the current approach to the movies. If they hadn't, I would have seen it as a missed opportunity. ___________________________________________________

From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy - 'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.

Everyone approaches Tolkien's work differently and I see where you are coming from.

For me the sense of connectedness across the legendarium is so strong I could never separate and compartmentalise Bilbo's journey. There is a particular literary reason for this. Having drunk from the well of the appendices and unfinished tales I have seen glimpses of what the Hobbit could have been. The Battle of Azanulbizar, Thrain's story and the description of White Council exchanges offer tantalising glimpses.

For PJ and Co to step up and bring these moments to life and recast Thranduil as a Sindarian Prince, whose characterisation is clearly connected to the Elves of the Silmarillion who halted on the great journey west, rather than the routine fairie eleven king of the book is something I consider a blessing which I never expected to see on the screen.

There maybe moments of playing to the crowd in the second and third films but if like the Stone Giants they are canon at least the narrative is not affected just my precious sensibilities for a couple of minutes.

In Reply To

Quote

I too really like how all the random misadventures the Dwarves suffer in the book are drawn together in the movie to have meaning within the greater geopolitical events of the day. Azog, as the Necromancer's representative, is the device that does that, maybe not perfectly but well enough for me.

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you talk about letting go of our childhood memories of this fairy tale-like book in order to accept that the movie had to be completely different in tone...

Even now When I re read The Hobbit I tend to view it soley in the light of how it was conceved, not what it became,My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

Well I agree on Thranduil. Lee Pace is A fave already...
[In reply to]

Can't Post

But as I said it my other post, I do consider The Hobbit loosely connected to BOLT and '26 Quenta, so the 'Elvenking' has always been Thingol to me anyway, I'm glad they are making Thranduil less of a cliched good guy Elf like they did with them in LOTR, I don't know whether it is Pace's Haughty posture or design but he comes across as pretty dangerous and mysterious just what a Sindarin prince should do, he (and Billy Connoly) are two of the few things I'm genuniely looking forward to.

It will be interesting to see if the words 'Noldor. Teleri or Silvan' are mentioned...

Quote

For me the sense of connectedness across the legendarium is so strong I could never separate and compartmentalise Bilbo's journey.

Cheeky question. then..Do you consider Roverandom part of the Legendarium then with it's reference to Valinor and the Other shores in the West? I don't have much to say.

It has come through in several of your posts and its a fair point when is something an adaption or a re write or merely inspired by.

In the case of Bond through out the period of Moore I was itching for them to return to the "Spirit" of the books. There were fragments from Dolton and "The World Is Not Enough" but the great thing about Daniel is for me he captures the spirit of Bond whether the narrative is entirely new or not. Indeed much of Sky Fall feels like the journey he makes over two books You Only Live Twice and Man With A Golden Gun and that's where they got their inspiration from.

In the case of old furry feet we are not only in the spirit of the book but we are strategically following the journey foot pad by foot pad. DOS will take Bilbo to Erebor and Gandalf to Gulder straight out of the book. I am calling that a reimagining, an expansion with the essentials intact and in the spirit of the legendarium but radically different from the childrens book in terms of characterisation, dialogue and visual imagining. My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.

You said in very good words what is also my approach to these movies. Well said!
[In reply to]

Can't Post

In Reply To

For me the sense of connectedness across the legendarium is so strong I could never separate and compartmentalise Bilbo's journey. There is a particular literary reason for this. Having drunk from the well of the appendices and unfinished tales I have seen glimpses of what the Hobbit could have been. The Battle of Azanulbizar, Thrain's story and the description of White Council exchanges offer tantalising glimpses.

For PJ and Co to step up and bring these moments to life and recast Thranduil as a Sindarian Prince, whose characterisation is clearly connected to the Elves of the Silmarillion who halted on the great journey west, rather than the routine fairie eleven king of the book is something I consider a blessing which I never expected to see on the screen.

ďA dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of menís imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.Ē J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.

I said as much in my short post under the link on the FP. I love how what he points out that Jackson did have to work and change to make it work with The Lord of the Rings movies. Not all of its been perfect mind you but I've really enjoyed what's been done as a whole.

As far as The Hobbit book and how I look at it. I love the book but I do think its a weaker story than The Lord of the Rings. I love that it starts out simpler in tone because the world hasn't gone totally dark yet as it does as we work towards the end of it and for a fair part of LOTR. Its a pretty simple story and if you don't read the appendices its not got a ton of detail. So I understand why Jackson has done what he's done as a whole. I also look at The Hobbit as part of a larger tale with The Lord of the Rings creating one giant story. That for me makes for one heck of a reading experience and is turning into one heck of a movie experience.